NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
GILBERT JAY PALIOTTA, No. 12-15450
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00121-ECR-
WGC
v.
ELDON K. McDANIEL; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Edward C. Reed, Jr. District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Gilbert Jay Paliotta, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Paliotta’s claim
that his due process rights were violated in a prison disciplinary hearing because,
even assuming that there was a protected liberty interest at stake, Paliotta failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether prison officials afforded him
all of the process that he was due. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454
(1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports
disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting
forth due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings that implicate a
liberty interest and explaining that prison authorities have discretion not to call
witnesses, “whether it be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented
in individual cases”); see also Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir.
1994) (explaining that if state procedures rise above the floor set by the due
process clause, a state could fail to follow its own procedures yet still provide
sufficient process to survive constitutional scrutiny), abrogated in part on other
grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
The district court properly granted summary judgment with respect to
Paliotta’s due process claim based on defendants’ denial of Paliotta’s
2 12-15450
administrative grievances because prisoners do not have a liberty interest in a
particular grievance procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Paliotta’s contentions that the district court should have allowed discovery
prior to ruling on the summary judgment motion, that the Nevada Attorney General
provided a false address for the service of process, and that the district court erred
by not allowing Paliotta to pursue an equal protection claim are unpersuasive and
not supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15450